Congressional Redistricting Process
Primary Sources
Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995)
The U.S. Supreme Court considered the use of “racial gerrymandering” while redistricting to increase minority Congressional representation by creating minority-majority Congressional districts. The Court declared Georgia’s 11th Congressional district to be a “geographic monstrosity” that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Perry v. Perez 565 U.S. __ (2012)
In this 9-0 per curiam opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of the U.S. District Court to redraw the district lines in Texas, but cancelled the new map, saying that it was unclear if the U.S. District Court, whose redrawn district lines had been appealed by Governor Rick Perry, followed the proper standards. The U.S. Supreme Court instructed that a district court must balance the State’s proposed plan with existing redistricting laws when redrawing districts.
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court cautioned bodies involved with redistricting that they must be conscious of race in order to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
Thornburgh v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986)
A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decided in Thornburgh v. Ginglesthat redistricting plans in North Carolina violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The redistricting plans were found to discriminate against blacks by diluting their votes among those of white voters, who consistently defeated black candidates. The opinion of the Court explains that the North Carolina redistricting plans damaged the ability of black citizens “to participate equally in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice.”
Voting Rights Act of 1965, 2006 Reauthorization and Amendments, Public Law 109-246.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was reauthorized for 25 years for the second time in 2006. The extension was named after three civil rights advocates, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King. The amendment changes the requirement that federal examiners may investigate only covered jurisdictions; federal examiners may also investigate areas where there are concerns that 14th and 15th amendment protections are being threatened. The amendments also eliminated federal observers, who had not been assigned in over 20 years at that point.